One of the last pieces of evidence that stands in Juror 8's way is a woman who testified to seeing the defendant kill his father from across the street. Furthermore, the scope of the play expands to become about how people come to decisions. This disturbance serves two purposes. Marshall , a stockbroker wearing rimless glasses, who depends on pure logic and tries to avoid emotion altogether. Juror eight suggests they ask the guard to bring it in for them to look at. The role of the foreman is usually for the most experienced person in this field or the first jury or for anyone who claims the desire and gets accepted by all.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the creation of cooperative communities as well as positive leadership in group settings and additional practical implications. But one holds out for a Not Guilty verdict. The question of morals and ethics also run a current theme through the movie. He then synthesises the content by pulling together what he had summarized, and analysed and discusses it with the input of the other jurors. If we analyze the Johari grid of each juror we see a large hidden area in the case of all of the men.
They found the father with a knife in his chest. He has a troubled relationship with his own son that preoccupies his thoughts. Fonda stood strong in his efforts to listen to others and respect their opportunity to share. He is biased and convinced that the boy is guilty and should be brought to justice. He demanded an explanation from jurors who changed their votes.
Or what does this show? It lost to in all three categories. This is clearly evident in the movie 12 Angry Men. He is neither open or receptive. We hear neither prosecutor nor defense attorney, and learn of the evidence only second-hand, as the jurors debate it. Juror Four notes that the double jeopardy law would prevent that man from being retried for the same crime. This is a film where tension comes from personality conflict, dialogue and body language, not action; where the defendant has been glimpsed only in a single brief shot; where logic, emotion and prejudice struggle to control the field.
Afterwards, in the first vote he stays neutral mentioning his points aiming to make some of the rest see the facts from a different angle avoiding any conflict. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument. At the beginning of the film, the cameras are positioned above eye level and mounted with , to give the appearance of greater depth between subjects, but as the film progresses the of the lenses is gradually increased. Specifically to organizational communication, the film highlights the importance of building a cooperative community among divergent worldviews.
His tone of voice indicates the verdict is a foregone conclusion. Another ethical issue is the use of persuasion by juror 8 who seems intent on turning the jury to find with him, he uses methods that may be ethically unsound to sway other easily pliable members of the jury his way to gain momentum to use against his most fervent foes on the panel. For them, it is greater than simply changing their mind about the case; it requires them to challenge notions held deep within themselves. The movie illustrates the process of leveling and soliciting feedback which can make all the difference. Asking us to invoke our values and assumptions, and find the truth amongst the evidence presented.
The deductive argument is the one most commonly associated with the study of logic. After a brief argument, 8th Juror brings into question whether or not the downstairs neighbor, an old man who had suffered a stroke and could only walk slowly, could have gotten to the door to see the boy run down the stairs in fifteen seconds, as he had testified. Evidence is debated so completely that we feel we know as much as the jury does, especially about the old man who says he heard the murder and saw the defendant fleeing, and the lady across the street who says she saw it happen through the windows of a moving L train. His defenses start to crumble as his unconscious emotions become visible to him. Finally, Juror 8 asks the foreman to take a second vote, which he 8 will stay out of. Their verdict is now a solid not guilty.
After questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror 8 Henry Fonda by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour. Unfortunately, leaving our prejudices outside the court room door is near impossible. That provides the backdrop to Mr. As the movie demonstrates prejudice can distort our views and greatly affects our ability to make accurate assessments. One way to help members feel appreciated and understand how all the viewpoints can fit together, as mentioned in the first section, is through greater listening skills.
He is shown to be morally conflicted. He stabbed a boy in the arm. To improve our thinking, we actually have to think for ourselves, to explore and make sense of thinking situations by using our thinking abilities. Davis casts a not guilty vote. Then ten adds the testimony of the woman across the street who said she looked out her window past the el tracks and saw the son stick the knife into his father. His utilization of the above concepts began to create an environment in which others felt comfortable in participating in the constructive dialogue. You know what I mean? It is about sending a young man to die.
Juror 10 then goes and sits in the corner by himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty. But sure enough, one of the other jurors votes Not Guilty, and the conversation continues. Juror 10 then vents a torrent of condemnation of slum people, claiming they are no better than animals who kill for fun. After another heated discussion which raises the question of why the boy would have returned home, after killing his father, they take another vote.